Frankie, my dear, I don't give a damn
Yesterday’s tactic of blogging about something that was actually relevant to current affairs resulted in a record number of readers, according to my analytics software, although rest assured I will not be abandoning this blog’s more important business of reviewing Toblerone and so on (the Very Late Review returns tomorrow, incidentally). There were some very perceptive comments on Frankie Boyle’s right, or not, to talk about Down’s; more perceptive, actually, than mine, since I didn’t really get to the bottom of what I feel about this subject.
I think I agree with the broad consensus of most people who left a comment, which is basically: yes, comedians can talk about what they want, and audience members should take the trouble to find out whether they’re likely to be offended and not go if they think they will be, BUT BUT BUT if you’re going to talk about something as risky as a terrible disease, you’d better have something really fucking funny to say about it, not just be taking cheap shots.
I agree that this would never have become a scandal had the Daily Mail not thrust its windy, pompous hat into the ring (can you have a pompous hat? Maybe one of those stupid ones people wear to Ascot), and I agree that, as with the Ross/Brand scandal, there is something very distasteful about seeing Middle England manipulated into being angry about an ‘issue’ which would, otherwise, not have mattered. And I think most of us would agree that if you sit in the front row of a Frankie Boyle gig, you ought to know what that entails. Also, as at least one commenter asked, was the furious mother prepared to laugh at all the other offensive stuff Frankie does – jokes about mental illness, homophobic gags, fuck knows – but then tell him to draw the line at Down’s? Are we not all being a bit hypocritical if we have Frankie on BBC2, revel in his ‘dark, edgy’ sense of humour, and then when he says something we don’t like, say ‘hey, hang on, that’s a bit too dark and edgy?’
But none of these sensible liberal viewpoints change the fact that I feel a bit uneasy about some of the stuff comics get away with.
I should clarify my position on Frankie himself: I think he’s a very gifted comic and I like him, from our limited acquaintanceship through Mock The Week. Vicious one-liners are not really my style – and, as a couple of people have said, if you like vicious comedy, someone like Brendon Burns is maybe a better example of how you can be provocative AND meaningful at the same time – but I respect what Frankie does and the skill with which he does it. (As for the suggestions made by some on this blog that he has people to write his jokes, I don’t know any professional comic who would use writers. COUGH COUGH COUGH COUGH COUGH. Sorry, something stuck in my throat there.)
But it’s my professional respect for Frankie which makes this a thorny issue. We can all more or less shake hands on the fact that Jim Davidson is a racist, sexist twat, even if, as a member of the 100 Greatest Ever Stand-Ups, his achievements dwarf mine. If Frankie’s making jokes about Down’s Syndrome, though, how is he different from Davidson, other than the fact he doesn’t stink of booze? Will future generations be aghast at our tolerance of Frankie, or Jimmy Carr, in exactly the same way we wonder how people allowed Bernand Manning to say the stuff he did?
As you’ll gather, I still don’t know how I feel about all this. I will say this, though. A few people left comments, or tweeted me, along the lines of ‘political correctness has gone too far’ or ‘leave the guy alone, he’s only joking’. I think at the root of my unease with dark comedy is that I feel ‘only joking’ isn’t a good enough excuse, or maybe that nothing is ‘just a joke’. Someone left a very good comment about Stewart Lee on this subject. As Stewart points out, the Top Gear team – in particular Clarkson, who is the modern-day Bernard Manning, but with cars – are fond of using the ‘hey, I’m only kidding’ card, but if Richard Hammond had died in that crash and you’d ‘kidded’ about that, they wouldn’t have found it hilarious. Likewise, it’s no good criticising ‘political correctness’ like it’s some sort of draconian idea invented to spoil our fun. Political correctness is what stands between us and Manning talking about Pakis. There are plenty of instances of it ‘going mad’, of course, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Without some sort of line of correctness drawn somewhere, comedy would be people bullying each other until we all started crying.
But where that line should be drawn, and who gets to draw it, is a question which will run and run for a while yet. Maybe I’m just too soft, and, as one Comment suggested, we should all just accept that comedy is cruel, and cross our fingers that it’s not us on the receiving end of it. In which case I’m going to pray that Frankie doesn’t have a routine about thin, insecure football-loving, cheese-hating people with baby sons. Boy, is that going to smart.
Posted by Knox on May 10, 2011
i realise my opinion is not a popular one, and i can understand why, but i personally don’t think people should be allowed to just say whatever they want unchecked, when what they want to say is hateful or offensive. i realise this view is impractical: who gets to decide what is/isn’t in the above categories, who polices it etc; and restrictive of people’s freedom of speech, but i still stick by it.
Posted by good on the radio on January 25, 2011
I don’t understand modern comedy. Very few comedians these days can tell gags, one liners. It is a very hard thing to do and requires skill. Give me Ken Dodd or Morecambe and Wise any day, at least they are (or were, in the case of M&W) capable of raising a laugh without being cruel to weak and often defenceless people.
Posted by Matthew on April 13, 2010
I don’t think there is a case of true “political correctness” gone mad ever to be found. Most the ones portrayed either are nothing to do with true political correctness, or nothing to do with it going mad.
Everyone has their limits on what they find offensive, Frankie Boyle has his (I am sure, I don’t know this for a fact).
I hate jokes around mental illness, but laugh at jokes on other equally serious matters. Everyone has a line, and a limit. Jokes on mental illness generally exploit stereotypes that are serious and harmful to people with serious mental illness. Jokes about Down’s probably do the same. But comedians are not making these stereotypes, they come from society, and the rest of us. This doesn’t removing all blame, but it does mean we should (especially if we write for the daily mail) look seriously at ourselves, and how we might be responsible for these these things.
Posted by Ben Draper on April 13, 2010
I’m not really in favor of most of the uses of the phrase “political correctness”, largely because it’s used in sentences like “there is too much political correctness” to mask the middle class secret right-wingers opinions on equality. What they are really saying is “there is too much equality and I want it to be like the ’50s where black people and asians were pissed upon by the state and the money spent helping political prisoner asylum seekers was given to me in the form of tax breaks”.
I believe it was Stuart Lee who said “one advantage of political correctness is that it has forced the Conservative Party to mask their racism behind more inventive language”. Something like that. But the phrase political correctness is the worst form of cover for a lack of political correctness in an individual. Political correctness is, more or less equality and saying that it has gone mad is the white mans way of saying he wishes he still had authority over other races and women and people different from him. The people who rushed to the defense of Andrew Sachs were laughing at Bernard Manning so you can’t take the collected opinion of a large group too seriously as they are probably guided by some media force with a vested interest in controversy and the dispatch of air time or column inches.
It’s all demographic i guess is my closing thought, one mans trash is another mans chaise-lounge.
Posted by Laurs on April 12, 2010
My head hurts from thinking about this topic. I’ve been pondering where I stand on the whole issue, and I have no idea if what I am about to say will make sense, but here goes…
I think that we all have different opinions on what is good comedy and what isn’t and also what about a comedian makes them funny or not. As a result, we know which comedians are within our tolerance level and in which situations we can see them.
For example, Jimmy Carr. I find his jokes about larger people unfunny and depending on my mood occasionally offensive. As a result I won’t ever see him performing live – why would I? I know that he makes jokes like that and it borders on some kind of sadism to pay to see someone who you know has the potential to offend.
However, Carr on panel shows, when he is bouncing off others, e.g. his appearances on QI, I actually find him entertaining.
I’m not quite sure where this makes me stand on the whole issue being discussed, but I can’t formulate properly what I mean and why it depresses me further to think that the daily mail perpetuates the myth that Britain is a country that is full of racist, sexist and many other -ists.
I’m at risk of deviating from the topic now, so I shall stop rambling and hope that soon my brain will settle upon an opinion that I can articulate in a much more succinct manner.
Posted by LisaD on April 12, 2010
It is an ongoing source of irritation for me that one of the great heroes of American civil liberties is Larry Flynt. The guy is a troll. An intelligent, weirdly enlightened troll, but a troll nonetheless. He is most famous for two things: inventing a version of porn made for people who think regular porn isn’t vulgar and demeaning enough, and being the cheerful court martyr in the cause of getting most of the more vile attempts to violate the first amendment overturned. He and his work are disgusting and WAY past almost everyone’s line and I have often thought that the world might be a nicer place–certainly for women–if “Hustler” had never been allowed to hit the newsstands…and yet activists, pinkos, feminists, the gay community, just about every minority in America really, owe him one. A lot of oppression used to get by under the guise of “protecting community standards” until Larry Flynt went to face down the Supreme Court.
My point, and I do have one, is that any remotely free society needs the guys who offend us. We don’t need to sit there and meekly accept being offended–after all the same Constitution that protects Larry Flynt also protected Gloria Steinem’s article that essentially called him a misogynistic ass–but we do need them. If they say something horrible and people get angry for a while and then the fuss dies down then groovy, things are working as they should. If they say something horrible and people get angry and then they demand that the offender be fired and he is but people are still angry and so more people have to quit and get fired and then a government agency comes up with a whole new set of rules to make sure that comedians can never offend someone on TV or the radio ever again……for example, that’s a pretty good sign of a larger problem. The offensive guys are the canaries in the State of Society coal mine.
Posted by Terry on April 12, 2010
This could come out looking as though I’m criticising (I think I spelt that wrong but I had a total mind block and didn’t wan’t to break my train of thought, even though this is breaking it) Frankie Boyle but I’m not.
He has a right to say what he likes to get a laugh out of people, and likewise, people have a right to comment back if they disagree with what is being said. The argument of “Oh you can’t stop me saying what I want” is often flaunted around and it’s true but then you can’t stop people saying what they want back as free speach works both ways round.
I feel Frankie Boyle not commenting on this situation is good because he shouldn’t have to. He often goes for the jokes that will get an instant gut reaction from people and he knows he’s doing it and it works for him. I work in a warehouse and I hear dodgy jokes all day, I even used to get sent racist jokes until I asked the people to not send that type to me as they just wern’t even mildly humurous(as any joke that can be written in a text message isn’t), but I never complained about this as everyone is different and everyone laughs at different things.
What I would like to know was whether the rest of the audience laughed because if that’s the case then surely the daily mail should be frowning at them too.
And now for my final thought, as the song goes “If everybody looked the same, we’d get tired of looking at eachother” and if everybody thought the same we get tired of thinking like eachother. Ok it falls down a bit at the end of that allegory(I think I used that in the right context) but you understand what I was trying to put across.
End of rant.
Posted by Martin on April 12, 2010
you would have to be mental to go to a frankie boyle show and expect not to be offended in some way. he has been on tv for years on shows like mock the week and would i lie to you. he has also done live at the apollo. by now you should know what kind of sense of humor you have and know whether a frankie boyle show is for you. comedians should be allowed to say what they want. doesn’t mean the audience have to like or even laugh at it. getting front row seats at a frankie boyle show must be daunting though. i would request them as far back as i could and just enjoy the show rather than be constantly worried the entire show when he will get to you.
Posted by Rachael on April 12, 2010
This probably goes without saying but, I would sooner go to any of your shows than to any of those of the others you have mentioned.
Posted by Dean on April 12, 2010
I think Carl is spot on. There’s a difference between doing jokes based on stereotypes because you’re using it as a short-hand, shared knowledge-base on which to hang the routine on, and then there’s doing jokes based on those stereotypes because you actually believe them.
Jimmy Carr gets away with so much because there’s a certain detachment in the way he delivers his material that you’re under no illusion that he actually thinks that way. Boyle goes down the Sadowitz/Jim Jeffries route of presenting his unpleasant material in a fairly unpleasant manner. You like to think it’s a comic persona but you’re not entirely sure. Jim Davidson is at the other end of the spectrum, openly admitting to hating women. Likewise Manning was quite obviously a racist (even if he didn’t agree on the use of that word to describe him, it was clear from his publicly held views).
The thing is, when comics like Boyle play to a small, comedy-savvy audience, it’s kind of okay, as none of us actually agree with that stuff. But once they ‘break through’ the whole thing gets a lot more awkward. The best example is Al Murray. I think he’s brilliant, the Pub Landlord character is this great ironic creation that mocks English jingoism. But stick him in the O2 and it’s quite obvious that that irony isn’t getting across to 90% of the audience. For them it’s just re-inforcing negative stereotypes.
When it comes down to it though, I doubt Frankie gives half as much of a damn as we do. He does ‘edgy’ stuff and knows what can happen from that. He’s probably just sat at home, not commenting, and watching the sales for his tour go up from the free publicity. And remember the woman didn’t court the press either.
So what we have here, is the press creating a story that’ll benefit the person they’re attacking, when the person that they’re defending doesn’t care.
Posted by clara81 on April 12, 2010
Like Laura, I also spent a long time trying to figure out my thoughts on this matter, and failed to come to a conclusion. I don’t really feel I can comment on this particular incident, as I haven’t heard Frankie Boyle’s joke or the lady in question’s comments.
In general though, I agree that everyone who holds opinions on something will be offended at some point. As a firm believer in free speech I really do think that everyone has the right to think and say what they like, as long as they are sensitive about when they say it. If, for whatever reason, you thing gay marriage is wrong, feel free to express that opinion but not at Gay Pride, for example. Also, thinking something, and voicing your opinion is one thing, but acting on it something else entirely. You may think that women belong in the home, but you can’t refuse to employ women on that basis.
Making jokes about potentially sensitive subjects is different again, but like I said I’m really not sure what I think about this at the moment.
Sorry if this doesn’t make sense. I find it very hard to articulate my views so that others can understand them…
Posted by Carl on April 12, 2010
I didn’t comment yesterday as I knew everyone else would be smarter and more eloquent than myself. But I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. You can’t insult one thing and not another. As long as there’s some intellect behind it. The thing that separates Frankie from Davidson is: Frankie is actually open minded, not a racist. Frankie’s jokes, like Gervais’, are laughing at the people who actually have those hateful views. Unfortunately there’s a minority who actually agree with the edgy jokes and think he means them, that’s the scary thing.
Oh yeah, and you can tell you’re a father, Mark. Terribly good dad pun that title.
Posted by Rick Procter on April 12, 2010
Indeed, having just read my comment back in the context of the others so far, I would add the following…
It’s a natural instinct to search for an absolute answer, a golden rule to stick to in the face of all such problems. However, by trying to find definite, generalised answers, you risk tying your thinking up in knots.
I’d say, as long as you’re sure of your own opinion in each individual case, and you have a genuine basis you can back it up with (in other words, you know what you’re talking about) I’d say you’re well equipped. Relativism rules.
Posted by Rick Procter on April 12, 2010
Well MW, as always my good man, I agree with and admire your sentiments a great deal – however, there’s just one point I’d make, regarding this bit: “Political correctness is what stands between us and Manning talking about Pakis.” The gatekeeper of this divide is (or should be) not Political Correctness, but people not behaving like fuckwits. The implication of PC is that a line is drawn objectively which everyone should adhere to in order to stay acceptable. But who draws this line?
Just the other day I saw Philip Pullman say on TV: “I don’t think anyone has the right to go through life without being offended.” I agree completely – but what all people have the right to do is think badly of someone who does offend them, and share their opinions with others. If enough people end up thinking badly of someone who has acted in a “dodgy” way, the point should be made.
I do think PC was important for a time, since it made a lot of people think about what they were doing, but I think by now it’s served its purpose and done all the work it’s ever going to be able to do. If people feel preyed upon by what they feel is an authoritarian decree (which I believe is a risk with PC) even if it is for the good, I suspect that any oppressed, bigoted views they might have would in rebellion become more defiantly ingrained.
One way or another, people are always going to act like twats from time to time and I doubt any PC line (or indeed anything else) could ever stop that. But likewise, nothing is ever going to stop people from having opinions (I hope!) and it is in those that each one of us holds our power.
Posted by Estee on April 12, 2010
There’s no line. If you choose not to be offended… you won’t be offended. Maybe that’s too simple, but aren’t we all.
Posted by Laura on April 12, 2010
I alone was several of your record number of readers as I attempted to formulate my thoughts, but I repeatedly gave up, floundering in no man’s land as I couldn’t decide where I was in this argument. I still haven’t decided and thinking about it is making my brain hurt. Being one of the Daily Mail brigade must be so much easier than being a liberal who isn’t easily offended…
Thankfully I slept through quite a lot of the 100 Greatest Stand ups or I would have ended up with the right hump (Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning? No you? Where on earth do they advertise for people to vote on these things?).
Posted by Emmy on April 12, 2010
Everyone’s line of what they consider to be offensive is different. My line is drawn in a very different location than Lady Gladys Waddlecombe-Puddleduck’s for example. I would like to think that I will argue until I’m blue in the face that no one’s line is any more valid than anyone else’s. And I would argue that, because everyone has a right to say and believe what they want. I guess what I’m trying to say is that to truly believe in free speech you must argue in favour of letting someone say something that you think is disgusting.
I don’t quite know where I’m going with this, but there we go.
I’ll end by just saying that I wish everyone would be nicer to each other. In my ideal world, group hugs would be a common occurence.
Okay, I’ll shut up now.
Posted by a curious observer on April 12, 2010
Comedy does not change opinions it only reflects them. If an audience laughs at a joke it must be because it already understood the argument before the joke was made. Comedians will always profit from mirroring stereotypes but thankfully they don’t set the agenda. Furthermore, any concerns we have regarding what can and can not be said must equally apply to all individuals. My argument is that it is impossible to laugh at a joke that offends you and I think you give comedians too much credit by worrying about their impact. They have no impact, the audience impacts them.
The peculiar notion of Offence with a capital O as if it is objective is absurd. Something offends me and I do not laugh or it does not offend me and I may or may not laugh.
To summarise: Bernard Manning made audiences laugh because ‘they’ were racist. He is just a useful sign for the group of people he entertained.
To further summarise: chill out, do what makes you laugh. If you are a misogynist you may write misogynist material but that cannot offend you because you are a misogynist. There may be an alien offended by the proposition that kittens are sweet. Who cares?
To summarise further: chill out.
Posted by Misha on April 12, 2010
I’m just going to take 5 minutes to be amused at the blog title, and enjoy the idea of anyone calling Frankie “dear”. Hmmmm.
It’s hard to know where to draw the line, which is why I prefer not to have to by just avoiding so called “offensive” comedy for the most part to begin with.
But then i’m a big fan of Minchin who could be said to be offensive within certain grounds. So I suppose its a difficult one.
I don’t know.
Posted by Maddie on April 12, 2010
I think that pompous hats do indeed exist. Metaphorically and materially.
Posted by Clembear on April 12, 2010
Its a good summary of unease.
And b/c the Simpsons is awesome:
Marge: I hope you realize now that violence on TV may be funny, but it’s not so funny when that violence is happening to you.
Bart: [smug] But it _would_ be funny to someone who was watching us.
Marge: Hmm…
Lisa: No, Mom, he’s right. [takes off shoe] Observe:
[throws it at Bart]
[Marge laughs involuntarily; Lisa and Bart laugh too]
Marge: Oh, my! Lisa, go to your room.
Lisa: Aw…
Posted by Anna Lowman on April 12, 2010
“But where that line should be drawn, and who gets to draw it, is a question which will run and run for a while yet.”
It will run for infinity – or there will appear to be a consensus and then something will happen to mean a subject goes off limits, or becomes acceptable. What we can’t have is, on one hand, people being deliberately malicious for malice’s sake or, on the other, there being moral outrage every time an individual takes offence and a paper happens to have a few inches to fill.